Water has memory, validating homeopathy

"carole" wrote in
ond.com:


How would you know what expert sources say when you cannot understand
research articles?

Mainstream medicine and what they typically prescribe.


By your own admission you don't visit doctors except for emercencies and
don't take medicines. How would you know how they work?

In fact, given the distorted views you have presented here about real
medicine, it seems apparent that you get all your information from the
very biased "alternative medicine" sources.

My opinion is more valid to me than the opinions of "experts" and
"reliable sources". Consensus medicine - where everybody agrees on
something that nobody agrees on.

Your opinion may be valid to you, but not to anyone else without
_valid_ evidence. So present valid evidence that backs your opinion.

I can get rid of infections, parasites and fungi with cheap cellsalts,
which tells me that modern medicine is wrong.

You still have your fungus, so you haven't gotten rid of it.


So where is the evidence that it works as they claim? Their mere
opinion - and that's what that quote is - is just an opinion, not
evidence.

I can get rid of fungi, infections and parasites with cellsalts, most
of which are dirt cheap and easy to find, some in the supermarket.

You have presented no evidence to back your claim.

Yeah, right. Present _valid_ evidence that Singh and Ernst are
wrong in their evaluation.

The fact that I can get rid of diseases that modern medicine would
treat with pharmaceutical products, shows that it doesn't understand
about nutritional remedies. But not only doesn't modern medicine
understand nutritional remedies, but it doesn't want to understand.

Modern medicine uses micronutrients to treat deficiency diseases, and
you know it.

Modern medicine has ruled out the concepts of "toxemia" and "acidosis"
which are the two main causes of chronic disease.

That's because alternuts cannot show a) the conditions as defined by
alternuts exist b) that they cause chronic disease.

And by your own admission, your "cures" can't get rid of your fungus.

--
One of the reasons for conspiracy theories is an assumption that
people in high places always know what they are doing. When they
do something that makes no sense, devious reasons are imagined
by conspiracy theorists, when in fact it may be due to plain old
ignorance and incompetence. - Thomas Sowel

I don't believe this saying. I think that people in the very highest
places know exactly what they're doing and the way to go about
achieving it.

I wish I had your confidence in high-level politicians. I don't,
since I'm well aware that humans make errors.

People in high places are paid good taxpayer money and have plenty of
underlings to help them. why should they make mistakes?

Remember that example I posted about Neville Chamberlain's mistake that
led to Soviet Union signing a pact with Nazi Germany? That is a prime
example of how people in high positions can and do make mistakes.

--
HOMOEOPATHY, n. A school of medicine midway between Allopathy
and Christian Science. To the last both the others are distinctly
inferior, for Christian Science will cure imaginary diseases,
and they can not. -Ambrose Bierce

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about steelclaws.
Allopathic is today's medicine. Look it up in the dictionary.

Find out when Ambrose Bierce lived. It shouldn't be that difficult, even
for you.

--
When did ignorance become a point of view? -Dilbert

"carole" wrote in
ond.com:

Micronutrients are very well researched, but you would not know that.
If they had any effect on the illnesses you claim, they would already
be used for those.


Yes, you'd think that wouldn't you?
But it isn't the case.

Nonsense. Micronutrients are used to treat the deficiency conditions,
and you have seen the list of those I posted.

All I can suggest is that the concepts of "toxemia" and "acidosis" are
off limits as they would cure most diseases and cut into
pharmaceutical market share.

You've STILL to show that a) the conditions exist b) that they cause
"most diseases."

Valid evidence, please, not crackpot sites.


So what we appear to have here is a
"dumbing down" effect with the mass media and the medical schools
playing a dominant role.

What we appear to have here is your paranoid fantasies.

And its really quite pathetic really, that you idiots can't work it
out.

We can. You cannot. As I said, you haven't been able to produce a shred
of valid evidence to back your claims, just arguments by assertion and
personal anecdotes - and neither are acceptable as evidence.

Which is precisely why you should not rely on "alternative medine"
practitioners. If they won't even know which disease is the case, how
would they know what to advise?

I'm not sure how much it matters.
Because according to cellsalts the remedy is the same for any ache,
pain, discharge or whatever, regardless of the diagnosis.

Bloody hell! Are you serious in saying that? An ache can be caused by
for example strained muscle, fractured bone or a tumor. And your magic
cell salts will cure all of those with the same remedy? I just cannot
believe that, as I'm not very gullible.


Eg, if I have a headache the remedy is the same whatever the cause.
I can't comment any further than that.

So a migraine and a brain tumor can be treated with the same substance
and cure it? Yeah, right...

Please present _valid_ evidence for the cure rate for the incurable
illnesses by "alternative medicine."

Asthma is supposedly incurable - I got rid of it with cellsalts.

I said _valid_ evidence for the _cure rate_. If I want personal
anecdotes I'll specify that.

Many diseases are the result of toxemia
which has built up over a person's lifetime of wrong eating. Most
alties probably don't know enough about toxemia and acidity and
nutritional cures. There are faults on both sides.

Not that you've ever been able to prove that claim, but try again.

I just don't think that most alties know enough about toxemia and
acidosis which are the two main causes of disease IMO.
I've been to altie clinics where they never really helped or
understood the issues, although they may say things like "your body is
toxic" but they don't seem to have any mechanism to deal with it.

My understanding is that toxemia means that some of the body's systems
aren't working at their optimum, and can show up different ways such
as constipation, various discharges, headache, skin troubles,
dandruff, coating on the tongue, various aches and pains. Treatment
should involve treating the lot, not in focussing on one thing only
such as headache or skin issues. A proper holistic treatment will
recognise symptoms as signs of toxemia and treat the whole body.
Toxemia is the forerunner of more serious diseases where the disease
has settled in and it isn't going anywhere fast. Often when a person
goes to the doctor with aches and pains or discomfort they are often
turned away as hypochondriacs, but when a person turns up with
something more drastic they are welcomed and given assurances they've
come to the right place. The doctors don't understand that disease all
comes from toxemia and acidisos that has taken quite a while to build
to the stage where it causes major disruption.

These symptoms are the disease (dis-ease) process at work, leading to
more severe manifestations which doctors have given names and attempt
to cure. Acidosis / acidity is when one or more of the body's systems
is more acid than it should be and these acids often aren't eliminated
or neutralised but stored around the body leading to degeneration as
people age. Some of the acids get stored around the body in the
tissues or joints which can then play up - causing cramps, desire for
back massage, pains in joints.

All that typing, and still no evidence, just argument by assertion. Try
again.

--
Authority has every reason to fear the skeptic, for authority
can rarely survive in the face of doubt. -Vita Sackville-West

Bob Officer -*-*.@.*-*- wrote in
:

An question: It has been suggest to me to read how Arikha in
Passions and Tempers has accused that Modern "evidence based"
Medicine has recreated the concept of Humors in the use of hormones,
enzymes, receptors, and transmitters.

What do you think?

I have not read that book, but I would find it very difficult to adapt
the 4 humours concept of balancing the humours to restore health to
hormones, enzymes, receptors and transmitters. EBM knows that variations
in these are not the causes of all diseases, like the 4 humours were
alleged to be.

--
There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity. -Johann
Wolfgang von Goethe

Bob Officer -*-*.@.*-*- wrote in
:

I just don't think that most alties know enough about toxemia and
acidosis which are the two main causes of disease IMO.
I've been to altie clinics where they never really helped or
understood the issues, although they may say things like "your body
is
toxic" but they don't seem to have any mechanism to deal with it.

My understanding is that toxemia means that some of the body's
systems
aren't working at their optimum, and can show up different ways such
as constipation, various discharges, headache, skin troubles,
dandruff, coating on the tongue, various aches and pains. Treatment
should involve treating the lot, not in focussing on one thing only
such as headache or skin issues. A proper holistic treatment will
recognise symptoms as signs of toxemia and treat the whole body.
Toxemia is the forerunner of more serious diseases where the disease
has settled in and it isn't going anywhere fast. Often when a person
goes to the doctor with aches and pains or discomfort they are often
turned away as hypochondriacs, but when a person turns up with
something more drastic they are welcomed and given assurances
they've
come to the right place. The doctors don't understand that disease
all
comes from toxemia and acidisos that has taken quite a while to
build
to the stage where it causes major disruption.

These symptoms are the disease (dis-ease) process at work, leading
to
more severe manifestations which doctors have given names and
attempt
to cure. Acidosis / acidity is when one or more of the body's
systems
is more acid than it should be and these acids often aren't
eliminated
or neutralised but stored around the body leading to degeneration as
people age. Some of the acids get stored around the body in the
tissues or joints which can then play up - causing cramps, desire
for
back massage, pains in joints.

All that typing, and still no evidence, just argument by assertion.
Try
again.

I suspect that was someone else's typing. The use of the vocabulary
in the article is not typical Carole.

The first paragraph may be hers, it's closer to her normal style.

--
The biggest flaw of conspiracy theories is that they defy normal
human behavior - i.e. our inability to keep secrets, especially
when money is involved. -Author Unknown

"Steelclaws" wrote in message
4.39...
"carole" wrote in
ond.com:


How would you know what expert sources say when you cannot understand
research articles?

Mainstream medicine and what they typically prescribe.


By your own admission you don't visit doctors except for emercencies and
don't take medicines. How would you know how they work?

In fact, given the distorted views you have presented here about real
medicine, it seems apparent that you get all your information from the
very biased "alternative medicine" sources.

I've been to doctors here and there - when I had tonsilitis and nearly had my tonsils removed until I went to
a chiropractor who fixed them up.
Then there was the appendicitis situation.


My opinion is more valid to me than the opinions of "experts" and
"reliable sources". Consensus medicine - where everybody agrees on
something that nobody agrees on.

Your opinion may be valid to you, but not to anyone else without
_valid_ evidence. So present valid evidence that backs your opinion.

I can get rid of infections, parasites and fungi with cheap cellsalts,
which tells me that modern medicine is wrong.

You still have your fungus, so you haven't gotten rid of it.

Well yes, but as long as I take the cellsalts it doesn't come back ...so?


So where is the evidence that it works as they claim? Their mere
opinion - and that's what that quote is - is just an opinion, not
evidence.

I can get rid of fungi, infections and parasites with cellsalts, most
of which are dirt cheap and easy to find, some in the supermarket.

You have presented no evidence to back your claim.

I have gotten rid of conditions that a conventional quack prescribes pharmaceutical drugs for including
infections, housedust allergies and asthma.


Yeah, right. Present _valid_ evidence that Singh and Ernst are
wrong in their evaluation.

The fact that I can get rid of diseases that modern medicine would
treat with pharmaceutical products, shows that it doesn't understand
about nutritional remedies. But not only doesn't modern medicine
understand nutritional remedies, but it doesn't want to understand.

Modern medicine uses micronutrients to treat deficiency diseases, and
you know it.

Modern medicine has ruled out the concepts of "toxemia" and "acidosis"
which are the two main causes of chronic disease.

That's because alternuts cannot show a) the conditions as defined by
alternuts exist b) that they cause chronic disease.

No, its because these concepts have been written out of medicine so they can sell more product.
You remember the Drug Story by Hans Ruesch, and how Rockefeller gave massive donations that congress was
against, but he found a way around their objections?
That was the start of the corruption.


And by your own admission, your "cures" can't get rid of your fungus.

--
One of the reasons for conspiracy theories is an assumption that
people in high places always know what they are doing. When they
do something that makes no sense, devious reasons are imagined
by conspiracy theorists, when in fact it may be due to plain old
ignorance and incompetence. - Thomas Sowel

I don't believe this saying. I think that people in the very highest
places know exactly what they're doing and the way to go about
achieving it.

I wish I had your confidence in high-level politicians. I don't,
since I'm well aware that humans make errors.

People in high places are paid good taxpayer money and have plenty of
underlings to help them. why should they make mistakes?

Remember that example I posted about Neville Chamberlain's mistake that
led to Soviet Union signing a pact with Nazi Germany? That is a prime
example of how people in high positions can and do make mistakes.

No, I don't remember it - and how do you know it was a mistake?
Sometimes things are sold to the public as mistake but were intentional such as the "surprise attack" on pearl
harbor.


--
HOMOEOPATHY, n. A school of medicine midway between Allopathy
and Christian Science. To the last both the others are distinctly
inferior, for Christian Science will cure imaginary diseases,
and they can not. -Ambrose Bierce

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about steelclaws.
Allopathic is today's medicine. Look it up in the dictionary.

Find out when Ambrose Bierce lived. It shouldn't be that difficult, even
for you.

Please explain the relevance of your wild goose chase.


--
When did ignorance become a point of view? -Dilbert

There are many points of view to a subject, there are many angles.

--
Carole
www.conspiracee.com
"The universities do not teach all things ... so a doctor must seek out old wives, gypsies, sorcerers,
wandering tribes, old robbers, and such outlaws and take lessons from them. A doctor must be a traveller . . .
Knowledge is experience." -- Paracelsus (1493-1541)

"Bob Officer" -*-*.@.*-*- wrote in message ...
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:42:04 +0000 (UTC), in misc.health.alternative,
Steelclaws wrote:

"carole" wrote in
gpond.com:
snip

--
HOMOEOPATHY, n. A school of medicine midway between Allopathy
and Christian Science. To the last both the others are distinctly
inferior, for Christian Science will cure imaginary diseases,
and they can not. -Ambrose Bierce

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about steelclaws.
Allopathic is today's medicine. Look it up in the dictionary.

Find out when Ambrose Bierce lived. It shouldn't be that difficult, even
for you.

This is part of Carole's overall problem. When a homeopath uses the
words "Allopath or allopathic" in relationship to the practice of
"medicine". Especially in the context of the time period or years
which it was used. They *Must* *Use* the definition as set by the
person that coined or originated the used of the word in that time
period.

I understand what you're saying, that allopathic was a word relative to the times.
However, it is still used today to describe conventional drug based pharmaceutical medicine which typically
uses the "poison, cut and burn" techniques plus the drugs that oppose the symptoms.


Thus look at the time period which Ambrose Bierce lived and died.
1842-1913?. During that early period Evidence Based Medicine was just
taking hold in the US. Many people practice medicine with no real
qualifications. The Four Humors (which was Based on Conjecture and
fallacies) had fallen out of favor. It had actually started falling
out of favor when Evidence Based Medicine started coming in to favor.
Evidence Based Medicine is considered newer than Homeopathy.

But who the bleeding hell was Ambrose Bierce and why bring him into the conversation?
And there's one thing that you don't understand - back in those days of Pasteur and the discovery of
vaccination and the germ theory it was the mid 1850's.
There were all sorts of people trying to figure out how to make a buck out of any new discovery, and how big
money could be made out of anything.
There existed a class of people called robber barons who were intent on exploiting anything and everything to
make a quid.
There was the railroad which opened up new opportunties, electicity which could have a tariff and be charged,
and pharmaceuticals.
What we've got today is largely a result of some decisions and processes that were set in place back that long
ago, be they right or wrong.


The change over date seems to be set about mid-1800. And in the areas
away from major learning/population centers the change would have
been later. and early the closer to leaning/population centers

I understand the book Passions and Tempers by Arikha gives a good
treatment to how firmly the particles of the four humors, also called
in some works Gallenism, was ingrained in society. Naturally when one
long standing system is abandoned many new areas of exploration
spring up. these are often just as wrong as the ones taking its
place.

So when a person which practices homeopathy calls a person a
Allopath, unless they are actually using the Four Humors, they are
technically wrong. Hahnemann uses the word he created, "Allopathic"
to refer to all treatments in existence at that time which was not
Homeopathy. (that means we must look at the world and what existed
then. (we can define Allopathic is the set of any medical practice
which existed in the period of between 1800-1835 which was not
Homeopathy.) Since the time period in which evidence based medicine
started displacing the Four Humors is has been set about 1850. we can
say with a degree of confidences that Hahnemann was not writing about
modern evidence based medicines when he referred to/or used
Allopathy.

The concept of homeopathy is built on a conjecture or assumption
which so far has been shown to be untrue.

I disagree of course.



An question: It has been suggest to me to read how Arikha in
Passions and Tempers has accused that Modern "evidence based"
Medicine has recreated the concept of Humors in the use of hormones,
enzymes, receptors, and transmitters.

What do you think?



--
Carole
www.conspiracee.com
Bob Officer finally admits it -"I am a tool"
http://groups.google.com.au/group/mi...ss+epidemic%22

On 11/13/10 8:53 AM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
4.39...
wrote in
ond.com:

...

So where is the evidence that it works as they claim? Their mere
opinion - and that's what that quote is - is just an opinion, not
evidence.

I can get rid of fungi, infections and parasites with cellsalts, most
of which are dirt cheap and easy to find, some in the supermarket.

You have presented no evidence to back your claim.

I have gotten rid of conditions that a conventional quack prescribes pharmaceutical drugs for including
infections, housedust allergies and asthma.

In other words, you offer no good evidence that cell salts work.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

...

Bob Officer -*-*.@.*-*- wrote in
:

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 11:06:00 +0000 (UTC), in misc.health.alternative,
Steelclaws wrote:

Bob Officer -*-*.@.*-*- wrote in
m:

An question: It has been suggest to me to read how Arikha in
Passions and Tempers has accused that Modern "evidence based"
Medicine has recreated the concept of Humors in the use of hormones,
enzymes, receptors, and transmitters.

What do you think?

I have not read that book, but I would find it very difficult to adapt
the 4 humours concept of balancing the humours to restore health to
hormones, enzymes, receptors and transmitters. EBM knows that
variations
in these are not the causes of all diseases, like the 4 humours were
alleged to be.

it sounds to be as if she did he historical research correctly, but
made too big of a leap on logic to reach her conclusion. The hormonal
interaction is one we have just scratched the surface lately and
leaning how molecules transport through receptors on cell interfaces
is a nearly new field of study more again to crystallography than
biology.

I added it to me list to read.

Yeah, it sounds like it. It's not uncommon that a specialist in one
field will be less competent when attempting to deal with an unfamiliar
field.

I will get a copy and read it as well.

--
Support of PeTA: Just another way to say that you don't
understand how the hell nature works. -Author Unknown

"carole" wrote in
nd.com:


By your own admission you don't visit doctors except for emercencies
and don't take medicines. How would you know how they work?

In fact, given the distorted views you have presented here about real
medicine, it seems apparent that you get all your information from
the very biased "alternative medicine" sources.

I've been to doctors here and there - when I had tonsilitis and nearly
had my tonsils removed until I went to a chiropractor who fixed them
up. Then there was the appendicitis situation.

That's 2 times and how many years ago?

My opinion is more valid to me than the opinions of "experts" and
"reliable sources". Consensus medicine - where everybody agrees on
something that nobody agrees on.

Your opinion may be valid to you, but not to anyone else without
_valid_ evidence. So present valid evidence that backs your
opinion.

I can get rid of infections, parasites and fungi with cheap
cellsalts, which tells me that modern medicine is wrong.

You still have your fungus, so you haven't gotten rid of it.

Well yes, but as long as I take the cellsalts it doesn't come back
...so?

That means you haven't gotten rid of the fungus unless you manage to
reinfect yourself often.

So where is the evidence that it works as they claim? Their mere
opinion - and that's what that quote is - is just an opinion, not
evidence.

I can get rid of fungi, infections and parasites with cellsalts,
most of which are dirt cheap and easy to find, some in the
supermarket.

You have presented no evidence to back your claim.

I have gotten rid of conditions that a conventional quack prescribes
pharmaceutical drugs for including infections, housedust allergies and
asthma.

How were you tested for housedust allergies and asthma? Were you
diagnosed by a doctor?

Modern medicine has ruled out the concepts of "toxemia" and
"acidosis" which are the two main causes of chronic disease.

That's because alternuts cannot show a) the conditions as defined by
alternuts exist b) that they cause chronic disease.

No, its because these concepts have been written out of medicine so
they can sell more product. You remember the Drug Story by Hans
Ruesch, and how Rockefeller gave massive donations that congress was
against, but he found a way around their objections?
That was the start of the corruption.

Show _valid_ evidence that the conditions exist and that they cause what
you claim.

Referring to that Ruesch fantasy is not evidence btw.

I wish I had your confidence in high-level politicians. I don't,
since I'm well aware that humans make errors.

People in high places are paid good taxpayer money and have plenty
of underlings to help them. why should they make mistakes?

Remember that example I posted about Neville Chamberlain's mistake
that led to Soviet Union signing a pact with Nazi Germany? That is a
prime example of how people in high positions can and do make
mistakes.

No, I don't remember it - and how do you know it was a mistake?

Because it was one of the direct causes, and a major one, for WWII
starting. Hitler attacked Poland when he was certain of Soviet non-
interference, in fact the pact specified that Soviet Union would divide
Poland with Germany. Germany was not strong enough (in fact it never
was, though later they believed otherwise) to take on France, England
and Soviet Union at the same time in 1939.

Sometimes things are sold to the public as mistake but were
intentional such as the "surprise attack" on pearl harbor.

That has been shown false as well, and I have posted links to that
earlier.

--
HOMOEOPATHY, n. A school of medicine midway between Allopathy
and Christian Science. To the last both the others are distinctly
inferior, for Christian Science will cure imaginary diseases,
and they can not. -Ambrose Bierce

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about steelclaws.
Allopathic is today's medicine. Look it up in the dictionary.

Find out when Ambrose Bierce lived. It shouldn't be that difficult,
even for you.

Please explain the relevance of your wild goose chase.

The relevance is the historical situation when that quote was written.

--
When did ignorance become a point of view? -Dilbert

There are many points of view to a subject, there are many angles.

Ignorance still is not a point of view, it's just lack of knowledge.

--
Learning without thinking is useless. Thinking without learning
is dangerous. -Kong Fuzi

Bob Officer -*-*.@.*-*- wrote:

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 11:06:00 +0000 (UTC), in misc.health.alternative,
Steelclaws wrote:

Bob Officer -*-*.@.*-*- wrote in
m:

An question: It has been suggest to me to read how Arikha in
Passions and Tempers has accused that Modern "evidence based"
Medicine has recreated the concept of Humors in the use of hormones,
enzymes, receptors, and transmitters.

What do you think?

I have not read that book, but I would find it very difficult to adapt
the 4 humours concept of balancing the humours to restore health to
hormones, enzymes, receptors and transmitters. EBM knows that variations
in these are not the causes of all diseases, like the 4 humours were
alleged to be.

it sounds to be as if she did he historical research correctly, but
made too big of a leap on logic to reach her conclusion. The hormonal
interaction is one we have just scratched the surface lately and
leaning how molecules transport through receptors on cell interfaces
is a nearly new field of study more again to crystallography than
biology.

Otto Warburg won the 1931 Nobel Prize for Medicine or Physiology for
his discovery of the transport mechanism of oxygen across cell walls.
He is a hero of the quackery world who always like to tell you that he
won two Nobels for his cure for cancer. There was a long discussion
here about how someone who didn't mention cancer in his Nobel lecture
probably didn't get the award for a cancer cure.

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/histor...il.htm#1cancer with a
follow-up at
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/histor...pril.htm#8play


I added it to me list to read.

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
I'm @RatbagsDotCom on Twitter